SHOW REDDY PENTA REDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 900/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2021AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that there was no indication of proper service of hearing notices and no adjudication on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order against the assessee, affirming the AO's addition of unexplained cash credits. The assessee had been given multiple opportunities for hearing but appeared only once.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits after affording sufficient opportunities and proper service of notice to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Show Reddy Penta Reddy, Income Tax Officer, SECUNDERABAD Vs Ward-10(5), [PAN: AIVPP8629H] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shanti Pawan Kumar, AR For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 19-04-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 19-05-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad’s order dated 23-02-2018 passed in appeal No.0118/2016-17/A3/CIT(A)-6, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making un-explained cash credits of Rs.61,98,200/- in the course of assessment dt.31-03-2016; has been passed ex-parte.

3.

The Revenue sought to highlight the fact as per the CIT(A)’s orders para 4.1, pg.4 that he had afforded four opportunities of hearing on 06-02-2017, 03 and 16-01-2018 and 19-02-2018 wherein the assessee appeared only on the third occasion.

4.

We do not see any indication in the CIT(A)’s said observation as to whether the assessee had been actually served the corresponding hearing notice(s) or not? And also there is no adjudication in the CIT(A)’s order on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant issue back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication as per law. It is further made clear that the assessee or his authorised representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30-09-2021 along with all the relevant corresponding detailed evidence followed by the necessary factual verification; at his own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities of hearing.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th May, 2021

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →